not THAT bad

[Matthew Fluet]

Also in the CHANGES file, I think you want 2001 for the first 9 entries.

> In  the CHANGES file, for 2000-5-30, the bug that caused polymorphic equality
> to return true when it shouldn't have, you should explicitly say that it only
> did  this  if  the  constructor  was unused or something.  (I know that isn't
> quite right.)  As is, it really looks like a much worse bug than  it  was  (I
> think).
>
> In 2000-2-12, the match compiler problem, it isn't clear from the description
> if this is talking about a compile time speed-up  or  a  run  time  speed-up.
> This should be made clear.
>
> In 2000-11-8, algebraic laws to the CPS shrinker, change
>     specifically target to IntInf primitives
> to
>     specifically targeted to IntInf primitives
>     IntInf
>